So he’s taking responsibility for Gaza?
Not just Gaza, USA is the biggest arms dealer in the world.
Lmaooo what a stupid thing for an American president to say
So…
Since Biden went around Congress to supply weapons to Israel they’re using to genocide the people of Gaza…
Biden is now claiming personal responsibility for the genocide in Gaza?
Like, has anybody honestly checked on Biden lately? Does he not understand what he’s saying or is he really leaning into “what are you gonna do, vote trump?” Strategy this hard already?
Because the danger is depressing turnout enough trump may win, not Dem voters voting trump.
And this shit show of a comment is going to depress turnout for Biden…
Not only supplying Israel is the direct reason why US soldiers are being targeting but also it bace the way to radicalized the new bin laden and the new ISIS. Who would target US individuals and interests every where.
While in the past the attacks are mostly is happening in middle east, there are no guarantees to fight will affect civilians in the US.
No one talk why bin laden became anti-usa eventhough he studied in western university and from a wealthy family. It is the US foreign affairs in supporting Israel that resulted in 9/11 directly or indirectly.
He’s really leaning in already, and the damn fool is going to lose the election because of it. Absolutely disgraceful.
I really think Trump will win again. Regardless of my opinion, I see that Republicans are focusing mainly on “look how good our guy is” and Democrats are only saying “look how bad that guy is” . The Democrats don’t seem enthusiastic about their candidate.
It is because they aren’t. Biden is a “not Trump” candidate. That’s it. We are voting against Trump, not for Biden.
maybe try voting for something? Let’s not be feckless.
What, pray tell, would you suggest that we vote for then?
There are some fantastic primary contenders on the dem side, but Biden and the DNC have been working overtime to remove them from state primary ballots or cancel state primary elections altogether. Similar kind of brazen corruption we saw from the DNC in both ‘16 and ‘20 to steal the nom from Bernie, now they won’t even risk a challenger getting the primary votes to begin with.
So, you could start by contacting your state DNC committee and ask why they think primaries aren’t necessary, despite Biden’s historic unpopularity going into an election year.
There was no Democratic incumbent president in 2016 or 2020.
Unless your president is wildly unpopular…like, tried and convicted of child molestation unpopular…it’s generally considered very unsafe to primary them.
Thats generally speaking. Given the state of the GOP and their no-holds-barred disregard of law and tradition, the DNC has to play it as safe as possible. Primarying an incumbent who is comparably not very unpopular within your party is not playing it safe.
Especially when the RNC front runner is Trump. He’s incredibly unpopular among the left. And Democrats aren’t going to pull any votes away from him no matter how hard they try.
They know that the only people they might be able to pull votes from are the near edges of the Trump camp. Moderates who don’t hate Trump, but don’t exactly like him either. To them, Biden is the lesser of two evils. They may not feel the same of an unknown, especially one that’s far to the left of Biden.
The real thing to be concerned about in the general is the far left. Any spoiler candidates that’ll appeal to them. My biggest fear is that 2024 will be lost because of some well-intentioned people voting for far-left third parties because of a distaste for Biden.
In other words, I think it’d be far easier to get the far-left to fall in around Biden, then it would be to get the slight-rights to move away from Trump, and certainly to get the party to coalesce around someone new and progressive at this current time.
I’m bitter about Bernie too. But I’m more bitter about Gore, and the hundreds of Nader voters in Florida that cost 2000. Bush 43 won FL by a margin of 537 votes. Nader had 97,488 in FL.
To be a fly on the wall in that alternate timeline. I bet the weather is nice.
Removed by mod
The thing is they’re half assing it.
They want voter to believe at the same time:
-
If trump is president he can do anything he wants.
-
If Biden is president, the president has no power.
Only Republicans and neoliberals are used to dealing with that level of cognitive dissonance.
It’s why 1/3 of eligible voters don’t vote.
I’ll probably get eaten alive by this comment section, but I’ll try anyway. I think there is more nuance here.
Trump has no respect for the rule of law, checks and balances, or the intended role of the executive branch. Trump at president will do anything possible to achieve his goals, no matter what he tramples along the way.
Biden isn’t that type of president. He does respect checks and balances and the idea of a powerful, but constrained presidency. He’s not going to go slam through a blatantly unconstitutional EO every time he doesn’t get his “wall”.
Much like before Trump, if you want change, you have to vote for more than the presidency, unless you’re willing to trample everything about the three branches of government. And maybe you’re also looking for an unleashed sort of populist presidency, but that’s not going to fly with the majority of democratic voters who still want to return to some degree of governmental normalcy.
Biden isn’t that type of president. He does respect checks and balances and the idea of a powerful, but constrained presidency
Cough cough
The Biden administration went around Congress on Friday for the approval of an emergency weapons sale to Israel that includes “projectiles and related equipment,” per the Defense Department.
Why it matters: This is the second time in December that the administration has done so, and the move comes as Israel continues its war against Hamas and faces criticism for its military actions in Gaza.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/30/blinken-biden-administration-emergency-israel-weapons-sale
You were saying?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act
You would be absolutely correct if Biden gave weapons to Israel or if the narrative the White House pushes wasn’t that Israel is defending itself.
I don’t think that Israel is defending itself, I think that it’s intentionally trying to commit genocide, but the law doesn’t explain who gets to determine when a country is acting in self-defense. Claiming Biden circumvented Congress is inaccurate, as the President has had the sole authority to do this since the '70s. Biden, like the other commenter said, isn’t that type of President. Trump would have actually circumvented Congress by straight up giving stuff to Israel, rather than merely authorizing a sale.
To be clear, I don’t like that Biden did that either.
gave
Yes…
It’s sooo much different that they used some of the over billion of taxpayer dollars that we give them annually to “buy” them…
And reality isn’t just whatever the current administration says it is…
The Act of Congress requires international governments receiving weapons from the United States to use the armaments for legitimate self-defense. Consideration is given as to whether the exports “would contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreements or other arrangements.”[2]
For fucks sake, by your logic all of Trump’s ridiculous claims he made as president were true because he said it was.
It’s really getting old seeing Biden defenders act like trump supporters
Selling and giving are absolutely different, regardless of where the money comes from. I see what you mean, in that it is effectively giving, but that’s just now how the law works. It should, I think Biden shouldn’t even be able to override Congress in this regard, but that’s just how it is. Congress can change that at any time.
The situation in Gaza is gray for many people, it’s not easy to claim it’s objectively defense or offense without proving it in court. I’m not trying to debate the morality of this context, I’m saying that Biden did not circumvent Congress.
It’s really getting old seeing Biden defenders act like trump supporters
Bruh come on, you know that’s a bad faith ad hominem. Someone isn’t acting like a trump supporter because they call out a blatantly false argument lmfao. If anything, it’s the other way around, attacking a person by baselessly comparing them to the other political side.
Biden’s had no more regard for the intended role of the executive branch than Trump, he’s just less openly antagonistic about it. Trump openly derides the system, while Biden just quietly whips it into line.
I disagree. If Biden was anywhere near that level, we’d be seeing him use much more power to at the very least earn some political capital he needs going into a contentious election. Most of the time this gets brought out, it’s for transferring arms to Israel. Regardless of your opinions on the transfer itself, which I also disagree with, it’s at least arguable those transfers are legal. Someone else in this thread linked more info. If it’s not that, I’m going to need to see some examples of overreach that come anywhere close to the Trump admin.
-
It’s not going around congress when you literally don’t have to
If he literally didn’t have to go around congress, why did he?
Just for a laugh?
Just to show he could if he wanted to?
Did he fucking forget that he could.
So they’ll sue gun shops owners when there’s a mass-killing going on, right?
Do you sue car dealerships when a drunk driver kills someone?
Bars certainly can be held liable for drunk drivers they served.
I wish
Not dealerships, but 43 US states plus DC, have dram shop laws that allow a drunk driver to sue the establishment that overserved.
That is horseahit
Hello pot, meet kettle.
Q Mr. President, do you hold Iran responsible for the death of those three Americans?
THE PRESIDENT: I do hold respon- — them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.
Cool. Now do Israel.
That means Canada’s done some bad shot too. We actually sell a shit-tonne of weapons.
I think that’s a good, fair way of treating arms dealers. Let’s apply that to everyone then yeah?
Lets apply that to everyone.
Now do Israel
Israel: Now do Hamas.
Whataboutism is stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Hamas: Israel funded us. Now do israel.
Funny how that works.
This is going to be the reason we get fascism.
US already has fascism
Removed by mod
Agreed. Progressive president when?
Removed by mod
I can’t for the life of me distinguish neoliberal economics from fascist economics.
If electorate are that dumb then we deserve it
It’s not even the electorate, the DNC is pushing Octogenarian Joe and his zionist sympathetic ideology. While they are also hiding any real alternative.
Yeah it’s the electorate. Dnc didn’t push shit. He’s the incumbent that was picked clearly in primaries. If the voter is voting on his Israel stance they’ll have a rude awakening with trump in charge. Not to mention how stupid it is to make a single issue vote
Hence it’s 100percent on a dumb electorate that can’t to basic if else logic
Removed by mod
I disagree, the DNC favors the incumbent, which I believe is a poor decision electorally. Moreover, the electorate should feel informed on the choices of candidates.
I don’t like the argument “DNC didn’t push shit” they are an organization with an agenda, just like all organizations. They maintain support for Biden and sweep any other candidates under the rug away from the visibility of voters.
It’s my belief that people on the left who would have voted from Biden, independents & moderates who support Palestine, will stay home based on single issues. I don’t think it’s smart of them to vote that way but, it’s an uncomfortable truth about the voting population that the DNC should understand.
misleading headlines are misleading:
Q But directly responsible?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll have that discussion.
This is from the same President that slurred “womenofamerica” at a rally, so I guess it’s understandable he would confuse being responsible for being responsible.
that last statement you made sounds wierd. He said what has been the status quo. Those selling are somewhat responsible but not directly responsible. Thats why the us gets so much flak (well and the actual do things we do)
I have a feeling Russia will use this… Expect them quoting Biden any time soon.
Pot screams out that the kettle is black.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation. … Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a “Russian tradition”, while The New Yorker described the technique as “a strategy of false moral equivalences”. Julia Ioffe called whataboutism a “sacred Russian tactic”, and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black. …
Citations Needed podcast: Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.
Ben Burgis @ Current Affairs: Is “Whataboutism” Always a Bad Thing?
Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countries’ crimes—it can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.
Is whataboutism acceptable, when Israel defends its actions in Gaza by saying “What about Hamas crimes?” Is saying ‘what about Hamas’ a valid defense against allegations of war crimes in Gaza? Should Israel be allowed to commit war crimes in Gaza because Russia is committing or facilitating war crimes in Sudan and Ukraine? “We bombed a hospital, but what about Russia! What about Assad?”
Personally, I think what Israel is doing in Gaza is no less bad, because the Russians are doing similar things in Ukraine, or because Assad bombed hospitals.
You see, the worst thing about what’s happening in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Xinjiang, wherever… it’s not the hypocrisy. It’s the war crimes.
Whataboutism isn’t cunning. It’s stupid and only useful idiots and morons think otherwise.
Removed by mod
@Hyperreality@kbin.social expanded their comment after i posted my mine, making it seem as if I tacitly accept that framing, which I do not.
As both pieces explain, it has its uses and its abuses.
